We've had the discussion on how does the PRO12 move forward for much of last season.

Towards the end of the season, PR012 CEO, Martin Anayi gave several media interviews on his own, and with PRO 12 chairman, Gerald Davies, on where the PRO12 needs to go to cope with changes in rugby within Six Nations and globally.

Anayi and Davies identified and acknowledged a number of the issues raised by PRO clubs CEOs and fans including increase in TV monies, match-day attendances, marketing, standard of refereeing, season structure and test window matches, scheduling of season matches/kick-off times including Sunday games, European competitions, player welfare/concussion, growing "event" weekends, etc.

Anayi and Davies met with PRO12 CEOs over the last season to discuss issues and get feedback on a number of proposals that would mark out the future for the PRO 12 and its member unions.

From various media interviews and reports - some unsubstantiated - a number of key decisions are being considered by PRO 12 and its 12 member clubs along with their representative organisations and unions. In summary, these would appear to include:

Changes to season scheduling to make it more accessible, consistent, and appealing to fans across the four unions territories starting from next season 2016/17.

Further investment in a referee development programme to deal with issues/perceptions of bias and neutrality for league fixtures

Stronger and more localised marketing and promotion of league games by the PRO12 and by the individual clubs to attract fans to games and make it more appealing to broadcasters.

More promotion and stronger branding/marketing of games by TV partners

Changing the structure of the league from home & away 22 games to a conference/pool structure that can accommodate more teams in the future from other unions/territories e.g. North America and South Africa, with East Coast of America being the first target to develop a franchise with operational and coaching expertise being provided by the four unions.

Development of Big Event Weekends to drive crowd numbers, create a more appealing product for TV companies/sponsors, and generate more revenues for the PRO12

Reduce number of games played during season and re-strucure so that no "league" games are played during the test windows in November and Feb/March

Consequently, this would allow a greater proportion of league games to have test players involved and increase quality of product.

During test windows, the PRO CEOs want rugby to continue, and a revised development competition is being proposed for these periods for development of academy and young players within squads not involved in test rugby. This may involve changes to the British & Irish Cup and the Anglo-Wlesh Cup. One report indicates that Premier Rugby may be interested in discussing the creation of a British & Irish development cup to replace the current AW Cup that would attract increased sponsorship and TV money than currently.

It's clear that changes need to occur for the PRO12. The current structure and set-up is neither sufficient nor sustainable. The most recent comments on this from the CEO of the IRFU in publishing their annual report indicate this clearly, and what changes need to occur. He also commented on the plans to develop a franchise in the US.

The potential for the development of a B&I league has been regularly discussed on 606v2, but for the purposes of this topic, it's not being included as the Premiership has commitments for the next 6-7 years on its TV deals that would not countenance such a move.

Feel free to comment/dispute/argue on what is being proposed - any errors are entirely mine.

Last edited by Pot Hale on Sat 16 Jul 2016, 4:55 pm; edited 4 times in total

So we are saying that the one man and his dog that turn up and watch the regions play the Italian sides pay for ALL the costs of travelling to Italy to play ?

Look I am not saying your wrong, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to say the Italian fixtures pay for themselves. I think, at the moment that the Italians are more of a drain on our league.

It is a daft message board tactic to reduce the point constantly to a level of silliness, as you do. We all know that there are more than 'one and and his dog that turn up', we all know the TV pays to broadcast those games and we all know the Italians pay to be part of the league.

Potentially lucrativeAn east coast-based US franchise entering the Pro12 would also open potentially lucrative broadcast and sponsorship markets.“It does up to a point,” said Browne. “It won’t be an overnight success. No broadcaster in America is going to throw millions at it until they can see what it looks like and if it works.“Funnily enough, in some markets, national broadcasting in the US is not where the money is. It is local broadcasting. So you have to pick the right city. But there are plenty of people in the US who are interested in rugby and its opportunities and they are interested in getting involved"

PhilBB wrote:The Italians have paid their own way and the home games make the travel to Italy affordable. It is simply wrong to claim 'we cannot afford to travel to Italy'.

So we are saying that the one man and his dog that turn up and watch the regions play the Italian sides pay for ALL the costs of travelling to Italy to play ?

Look I am not saying your wrong, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to say the Italian fixtures pay for themselves. I think, at the moment that the Italians are more of a drain on our league.

Could I suggest that you research the actual additional costs of a team travelling to Italy - as opposed to say travelling to Cork, Edinburgh, Galway, Dublin, Belfast, Cardiff, Glasgow?

The monies paid by the Italian teams were to cover the additional costs involved. The regions and others received monies towards the trip costs.

I'm not sure what your 'one man and his dog' refers to in relation to attendances. Do you mean Welsh games in Italy or Italian games in Wales? If the latter, then a quick glance at the PRO12 website will give you the numbers for Treviso and Zebre games. E.g. Cardiff v Munster 5,017 and Cardiff v Treviso 5,258.

Last edited by Pot Hale on Mon 18 Jul 2016, 11:27 am; edited 1 time in total

So we are saying that the one man and his dog that turn up and watch the regions play the Italian sides pay for ALL the costs of travelling to Italy to play ?

Look I am not saying your wrong, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to say the Italian fixtures pay for themselves. I think, at the moment that the Italians are more of a drain on our league.

It is a daft message board tactic to reduce the point constantly to a level of silliness, as you do. We all know that there are more than 'one and and his dog that turn up', we all know the TV pays to broadcast those games and we all know the Italians pay to be part of the league.

Those are the facts that disprove your claim.

OK Phil, I say one man and his dog because it is obvious outside of season ticket holders that no extra people go and watch the games against Italian sides, they do not draw people in. Have the prices of the season tickets gone up that much to include the Italian fixtures, I do not think they have. Thus that is why I do not think that ticket prices are covering them. Also, I very much doubt that the inclusion of the Italian fixtures have made that much more in TV income, it is you who keeps on about TV money, do the Italians have a TV deal ?

The Italian sides pay their 1m membership fee, the same as everybody else, they do not pay for the other sides to travel anymore.

OK Phil, I say one man and his dog because it is obvious outside of season ticket holders that no extra people go and watch the games against Italian sides, they do not draw people in. Have the prices of the season tickets gone up that much to include the Italian fixtures, I do not think they have. Thus that is why I do not think that ticket prices are covering them. Also, I very much doubt that the inclusion of the Italian fixtures have made that much more in TV income, it is you who keeps on about TV money, do the Italians have a TV deal ?

The Italian sides pay their 1m membership fee, the same as everybody else, they do not pay for the other sides to travel anymore.

If nobody outside of season ticket holders watch the Italian sides, does that mean that you think Cardiff have 5,200 season ticket holders?

You should know that the Italians have a tv deal as you've watched Welsh sides play in Italy.

The other Unions don't pay a membership fee, so you may also have to consider your inaccuracy on that.

Pot Hale wrote:Could I suggest that you research the actual additional costs of a team travelling to Italy - as opposed to say travelling to Cork, Edinburgh, Galway, Dublin, Belfast, Cardiff, Glasgow?

I am not disputing the cost differences between each trip, I am disputing the EXTRA trips that have to paid for to go and play in Italy plus the extra trips that potentially have to be paid for to travel even further.

Pot Hale wrote:The monies paid by the Italian teams were to cover the additional costs involved. The regions and others received monies towards the trip costs.

They have stopped paying the extra now though haven't they ?

Pot Hale wrote:I'm not sure what your 'one man and his dog' refers to in relation to attendances. Do you mean Welsh games in Italy or Italian games in Wales? If the latter, then a quick glance at the PRO12 website will give you the numbers for Treviso and Zebre games.

I am referring to the extra non-season ticket holders who would go and watch the regions. The Italian clubs do not draw fans.

So we are saying that the one man and his dog that turn up and watch the regions play the Italian sides pay for ALL the costs of travelling to Italy to play ?

Look I am not saying your wrong, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to say the Italian fixtures pay for themselves. I think, at the moment that the Italians are more of a drain on our league.

It is a daft message board tactic to reduce the point constantly to a level of silliness, as you do. We all know that there are more than 'one and and his dog that turn up', we all know the TV pays to broadcast those games and we all know the Italians pay to be part of the league.

Those are the facts that disprove your claim.

OK Phil, I say one man and his dog because it is obvious outside of season ticket holders that no extra people go and watch the games against Italian sides, they do not draw people in. Have the prices of the season tickets gone up that much to include the Italian fixtures, I do not think they have. Thus that is why I do not think that ticket prices are covering them. Also, I very much doubt that the inclusion of the Italian fixtures have made that much more in TV income, it is you who keeps on about TV money, do the Italians have a TV deal ?

The Italian sides pay their 1m membership fee, the same as everybody else, they do not pay for the other sides to travel anymore.

This is disingenuous. You could argue that no extra Welsh fans go to watch a number of sides since the attendance numbers are pretty much the same e.g. Dragons v Zebre 4159, Dragons v Treviso 4,940, Dragons v Ulster 4,483.

The Italians have their own TV deal as they were not a shareholder when the Sky deal was set up. The monies from that go directly to the Italian union.

I did a full summary of last seasons' attendances by club and country. It's in another thread about a ridiculous claim that PRO 12 attendances are pretty much the same as the Premiership based on one week's attendances.

It's interesting to see which teams are the best away draw for fans. And the Italian teams are quite respectable in that regard comparatively.

Pot Hale wrote:Could I suggest that you research the actual additional costs of a team travelling to Italy - as opposed to say travelling to Cork, Edinburgh, Galway, Dublin, Belfast, Cardiff, Glasgow?

I am not disputing the cost differences between each trip, I am disputing the EXTRA trips that have to paid for to go and play in Italy plus the extra trips that potentially have to be paid for to travel even further.

Pot Hale wrote:The monies paid by the Italian teams were to cover the additional costs involved. The regions and others received monies towards the trip costs.

They have stopped paying the extra now though haven't they ?

Pot Hale wrote:I'm not sure what your 'one man and his dog' refers to in relation to attendances. Do you mean Welsh games in Italy or Italian games in Wales? If the latter, then a quick glance at the PRO12 website will give you the numbers for Treviso and Zebre games.

I am referring to the extra non-season ticket holders who would go and watch the regions. The Italian clubs do not draw fans.

Go and research attendances for Italian away games against the following teams Dragons, Cardiff, Munster, Ulster, Connacht, Edinburgh and put the numbers up here to support your claim.

Sin é wrote:Its worthless from a financial point of view because it contributes nothing in the way of sponsorship to the pot. Basically, you're hanging onto everyone else coat tails. You just want the easy money and are not prepared to put the hard graft into developing the attendance.

Both tournaments carry the same sponsors. There's no breakdown.

Let's remember that PRW attendances per population are better than those from IRFU branches, just to put in to context that daft final sentence troll.

All two sponsors

At least the Provinces themselves try and promote ticket sales to the sport ranked 4th in popularity.

I did a full summary of last seasons' attendances by club and country. It's in another thread about a ridiculous claim that PRO 12 attendances are pretty much the same as the Premiership based on one week's attendances.

It's interesting to see which teams are the best away draw for fans. And the Italian teams are quite respectable in that regard comparatively.

At least the Provinces themselves try and promote ticket sales to the sport ranked 4th in popularity.

I do find it funny how you take a pop at EPCR despite it bringing in more income than did ERC, just from broadcasters alone. It makes you look quite silly.

However, that second sentence.... what's that all about? It could be read that you're making a claim that the PRW teams don't try to promote ticket sales but you can't be being that stupid. So what point are you trying to make?

The Italians were coming along nicely until the Regions decided they wanted to jump into bed with the English. They lost 26 players from their 2 teams because of the uncertainty of what is going to happen. The Regions/WRU civil war probably put Italian rugby back 10 years.

Sin é wrote:The Italians were coming along nicely until the Regions decided they wanted to jump into bed with the English. They lost 26 players from their 2 teams because of the uncertainty of what is going to happen. The Regions/WRU civil war probably put Italian rugby back 10 years.

Fair play, that's tin foil hat stuff.

Are you sure it wasn't because Benetton just cut their investment because of their infighting with the Italian Union? I do remember having to educate you on how Zebre were now in private ownership after you got that one wholly wrong, too.

At least the Provinces themselves try and promote ticket sales to the sport ranked 4th in popularity.

I do find it funny how you take a pop at EPCR despite it bringing in more income than did ERC, just from broadcasters alone. It makes you look quite silly.

However, that second sentence.... what's that all about? It could be read that you're making a claim that the PRW teams don't try to promote ticket sales but you can't be being that stupid. So what point are you trying to make?

Have you a link to the EPCR's Annual Report? Love to see it As for the lack of Sponsors - the EPCR seem to be fairly toxic. And of course the messing with the broadcasters isn't helping either.

How can the Regions sell any tickets when theyir so called fans spend their time rubishing it? Talking about turkeys voting for Christmas. Its nearly as bad as Wales voting for Brexit!

The Italians were coming along nicely until the Regions decided they wanted to jump into bed with the English. They lost 26 players from their 2 teams because of the uncertainty of what is going to happen. The Regions/WRU civil war probably put Italian rugby back 10 years.

I remember the Italians were planning on starting another team around the Venice region which hasn't happened now.

The Italians were coming along nicely until the Regions decided they wanted to jump into bed with the English. They lost 26 players from their 2 teams because of the uncertainty of what is going to happen. The Regions/WRU civil war probably put Italian rugby back 10 years.

I remember the Italians were planning on starting another team around the Venice region which hasn't happened now.

The Italians were coming along nicely until the Regions decided they wanted to jump into bed with the English. They lost 26 players from their 2 teams because of the uncertainty of what is going to happen. The Regions/WRU civil war probably put Italian rugby back 10 years.

I remember the Italians were planning on starting another team around the Venice region which hasn't happened now.

Check the date of the link. Then check your claim it was PRW / WRU based.

Did you actually read that article?

The reason they were withdrawing:

Reports claimed the Italians planned to withdraw their leading clubs Zebre and Treviso into a domestic national championship because of uncertainty over the future of the European Cup with leading Welsh clubs contemplating an alliance with English Premiership teams.

Reports claimed the Italians planned to withdraw their leading clubs Zebre and Treviso into a domestic national championship because of uncertainty over the future of the European Cup with leading Welsh clubs contemplating an alliance with English Premiership teams.

Erm, think about it. Those 'reports' were so accurate, the Italians did the exact opposite.

Reports claimed the Italians planned to withdraw their leading clubs Zebre and Treviso into a domestic national championship because of uncertainty over the future of the European Cup with leading Welsh clubs contemplating an alliance with English Premiership teams.

Erm, think about it. Those 'reports' were so accurate, the Italians did the exact opposite.

Because it was too little too late. Players had already signed for english and French clubs. My point is that the Welsh Rugby civil war knocked back Italian rugby by about 10 years.

Reports claimed the Italians planned to withdraw their leading clubs Zebre and Treviso into a domestic national championship because of uncertainty over the future of the European Cup with leading Welsh clubs contemplating an alliance with English Premiership teams.

Erm, think about it. Those 'reports' were so accurate, the Italians did the exact opposite.

Because it was too little too late. Players had already signed for english and French clubs. My point is that the Welsh Rugby civil war knocked back Italian rugby by about 10 years.

And my point is that it has b*gger all to do with the topic in hand so why not put a sock in it, both of you?

I did a full summary of last seasons' attendances by club and country. It's in another thread about a ridiculous claim that PRO 12 attendances are pretty much the same as the Premiership based on one week's attendances.

It's interesting to see which teams are the best away draw for fans. And the Italian teams are quite respectable in that regard comparatively.

PhilBB wrote:The Italians have paid their own way and the home games make the travel to Italy affordable. It is simply wrong to claim 'we cannot afford to travel to Italy'.

So we are saying that the one man and his dog that turn up and watch the regions play the Italian sides pay for ALL the costs of travelling to Italy to play ?

Look I am not saying your wrong, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to say the Italian fixtures pay for themselves. I think, at the moment that the Italians are more of a drain on our league.

From Wales Online in March 2010:

"We can reveal the four-year agreement, worth a staggering £10m to the competition, should give Wales’ four regions – Blues, Dragons, Ospreys and Scarlets – £300,000 each per season.

Even after travel and flight costs are deducted for the two trips that the regions will make to Italy from next season in the expanded 12-team league, the quartet are expected to bank a £250,000 profit on the deal.

And that’s before revenue from the home fixtures with Benetton Treviso and Viadana-based regional team Aironi is factored in."

Golden wrote:Could we go the way of premier league teams in having a preseason tour of the US? I'm sure there would be an interest in watching the pro12 teams even without their internationals playing the American franchises or just having mini tournaments with each other.

Wouldn't have to be any extra games as it would just replace the preseason friendlies. It would be the off season for most American sports apart from Baseball.

The American football game they have in the Aviva sells out every year. Could get something like that going with provinces in America.

That's down to the sheer number of fans that are brought over from America. I remember being in Croke Park and the Penn State fans (whose average home attendance is 96,000!) literally filled up half the stadium themselves. It is certainly worth a shot though.

There was talk of Super Rugby expanding to the US, as its a market that could be big,

Back in 2011, Australian sports broadcasting analyst Colin Smith noted that the addition of Japanese and American teams could result in a TV deal worth more than A$1 billion beyond 2020. Specifically, he stated, "You could have a deal comparable to the other major sports in Australia. Rugby is a college (university) sport in the US, if soccer can create its own league there and sell teams for $40 million, imagine what you could do in 10–12 years with rugby in that market."

Also Pro Rugby that has been set up would make a great conference if the Pro 12 goes down this route,

Phil may not like, "The competition operates in a single-entity structure with all teams, at least initially, owned by the league, itself; individual investors own an interest in the competition but do not own individual teams"

Kingshu wrote:Phil may not like, "The competition operates in a single-entity structure with all teams, at least initially, owned by the league, itself; individual investors own an interest in the competition but do not own individual teams"

That's because it is bankrolled by one guy. His plan is to make it successful so that he can sell off the franchises to a) make himself money and b) increase the competition level.

You know, exactly what the IRFU should be doing instead of wasting their time on American pipe dreams.

Phil, an exhibition hurling game got 30K in the Red Sox stadium in Boston last year. They plan on doing it as an annual event. It was sponsored by AIG who also sponsor the ABs and who are pushing rugby in the US.

And just so you know, Munster already have a US Supporters Club based in New York.

Sin é wrote:Phil, an exhibition hurling game got 30K in the Red Sox stadium in Boston last year. They plan on doing it as an annual event. It was sponsored by AIG who also sponsor the ABs and who are pushing rugby in the US.

And just so you know, Munster already have a US Supporters Club based in New York.

Awesome.

Munster also can't afford to pay back Irish rugby €9m.

Remind me again how that London Irish game went against expectations?

This nonsense is just the last attempt to cling on to power by a Blazer set that has been shamed and embarrassed in recent years by the private market. This attempt to play to the American market is where Cobner had the WRU in 1998. That didn't work out and neither will this nonsense.